In each of many types of insurance policies, each of one or more persons are declared within the policy as being a named insured for whom the policy is specifically written. For one example, in an insurance policy on the life of one or more persons, each such person is a named insured. For another example, in an insurance policy on property, each owner of the property may be a named insured, as may be any entity holding a creditor interest in the property, such as for example a mortgagee. For yet another example, in an insurance policy on one or more automobiles of a household, each licensed driver of the household may be a named insured.
Significantly, by being a named insured in any insurance policy, a person may have rights that arise from the insurance policy and may also have responsibilities that arise from the insurance policy. As an example of the former, a person as a named insured in an insurance policy on property may have the right to collect insurance proceeds in the event of a property loss such as a fire or a theft. As an example of the latter, a person as a named insured in an insurance policy on an automobile must not intentionally do any harm to any automobile insured under such policy, especially if the person wishes to collect insurance proceeds to cover a loss resulting from such harm.
From the point of view of an insurance company, each of one or more certain persons or entities must be a named insured on certain insurance policies. For one example, in an insurance policy on real property, it may be that each owner of the real property must be a named insured. Otherwise, in the event of a loss where insurance proceeds are distributed, the insurance company could be unnecessarily involved in a dispute over such insurance proceeds between a collecting named insured owner and a non-collecting non-named insured owner. For another example, in an insurance policy on an automobile of a household, it may be that each licensed driver of the household must be a named insured. Otherwise, and taking into consideration that the basis of the insurance is the automobile involved in a loss and not the driver driving the automobile at the time of the loss, the insurance company could be liable for a loss in connection with the automobile incurred by a non-named insured driver of the household even though the insurance company did not consider such non-named insured driver when taking into account the risk to be insured against.
Notably, and from the point of view of a person obtaining an insurance policy, there are incentives for not including a person as a named insured on an insurance policy. For one example, it may be that having the person as a named insured on the policy increases the premium that must be paid for the policy. For another example, it may be that the person is deemed an undesirable risk and having the person as a named insured on the policy causes the insurance company to decline to issue such policy. For yet another example, it may be that the person as a named insured on the policy re-categorizes the policy into a less desirable area of the insurance company, such as for example may be employed to service higher risk situations.
One particularly relevant situation where there is an incentive to not include a person as a named insured and that may be exemplary is with regard to an insurance policy on an automobile of a household where the driver is a youth. From the point of view of a typical insurance company, and as was alluded to above, the youth must be a named insured on the policy if the youth is a member of the household and presumably will be driving the automobile in at least some circumstances. However, from the point of view of the policy owner paying the premium for such policy, which would typically be a parent of the youth, the prospect of having the youth as a named insured on the policy will likely mean a substantial increase in the premium, especially inasmuch as a youth statistically has a much higher risk of incurring a loss in connection with the policy. Thus, the policy owner paying the premium would like to delete the youth as a named insured on the policy if at all possible.
Of course, other situations abound where a policy owner would like to delete a particular person as a named insured on an insurance policy, and at the same time the insurance company issuing the policy would consider it necessary that the particular person be included as a named insured on the policy. In a similar manner, situations abound where a policy owner would like to delete a particular person as a named insured on an insurance policy, but doing so would not be advisable or could raise issues. As a result, insurance companies heretofore have not allowed a person to be deleted as a named insured from at least some types of insurance policies without at least a conversation with a representative of the insurance company that could ascertain why the deletion of the person is being requested.
Notably, too, such a conversation has heretofore been conducted in an ad hoc manner without benefit of any specific process that must be followed to determine whether deleting the person from the policy is in fact allowable. As a result, two different conversations based on similar facts could nevertheless result in opposite deletion decisions.
Accordingly, a need exists for a specific process that is to be followed in determining whether to delete a person from an insurance policy. Moreover, a need exists for such a specific process that may be implemented by a computing device so that the computerized process can be performed for a policy owner by a representative of the insurance company, or even by the policy owner himself or herself, who would access the computerized process by way of a computing device thereof coupled to a service of the insurance company by way of an inter-network connection such as the Internet.